RAGHUVEER PRASAD Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff - appellant under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2005 passed by learned District judge, Datia in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/05 whereby the Judgment and decree dated 13/11/1996 passed by learned First Civil Judge. Class-I, Datia in Civil Suit No. 69-A/96 has been confirmed. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff - appellant has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit land survey No. 1453/2/1 area 2 acre which was gifted by Devisingh to Parvat Singh (father of plaintiff) in the year 1958 in the name of defendant No. 1 - Ramkishan, who is elder son of Parvat Singh. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the above suit land remained in joint possession of Parvat Singh, Plaintiff and defendants No. 1, 2, and 3. Thereafter, in the year 1967, an oral partition took place between plaintiff and defendants No 1, 2, 3 (A) and 3 (C). Defendant No. 1 also executed a receipt of partition. In the year 1984, defendants No. 2 and 3 released their share orally in favour of plaintiff, and defendant No. 1 has also left the place. Thereafter plaintiff came into possession of whole of the Suit land. In the municipal records also, name of plaintiffs father Parvat Singh was recorded and after his death, plaintiff is paying the house tax. So the defendant No, 1 is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs father. Further on the basis of gift deed, name of defendant No. 1 was mutated in the record and due to attempts by the defendant No. 1 in the year 1989 to sell out the suit land, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that suit land was gifted to him and he is having the possession over the suit land. It is further alleged that plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 are acting in collusion to grab the suit land owned by defendant No. 1. No receipt of partition was ever executed by the defendant No. 1.

(3.) Defendants No. 2 and 3 in their written statement admitted the allegations made in the plaint.